"The Myth of Normal"

[Federica]

I would say it comes down to the question of free will. If we have free will to some extent, we bear responsibility. Does trauma completely erase free will for the average person who lies somewhere in between the edges of the 'trauma spectrum'? Apart from extreme situations, if you don't want to assign individual responsibility, you have to find a way to answer yes to that question.

As long as free will is understood as a process of becoming more and more aware, in a more and more full context of set and setting rather than a simple on/off switch as in free/not free. I believe we all agree that none of us are complete and that freedom is an ongoing work. For me, this includes compassion toward myself and others.

A bit more Federica. I'm thrilled that some have chosen to exercise their free will to develop more and more spiritually. I also sadly recognize that, in the shorter term, extreme situations (events) are likely to be a prime mover of the more social structural process. This will likely create even more reasons for the more developed ones to be compassionate, caring and helpful to others in the process. I think of this as a transition "from me to we." Most likely, it is better understood as an expansion of love.

I agree with you, Lou. Only I would put the accent on our reaction to the events, more than on the events themselves. As Maté says, there are traumatic events, but the real trauma is generated in our reaction to these events. I agree there are extreme events that it's near to impossible to respond to with free will. However, more often than not, in common traumatic situations, we imagine that there's only one inevitable way to react. And so we feel that way automatically. We think that because someone has an offensive behavior, we must feel offended and there is no choice. We feel that because someone has tried to diminish us, we have no choice but feeling diminished, etc. Becoming aware of these degrees of freedom, that sometimes are separated from us only by a thin layer of habitual mind patterns does not exclude compassion and love from those who can be of help.

[Lou Gold]

As long as free will is understood as a process of becoming more and more aware, in a more and more full context of set and setting rather than a simple on/off switch as in free/not free. I believe we all agree that none of us are complete and that freedom is an ongoing work. For me, this includes compassion toward myself and others.

A bit more Federica. I'm thrilled that some have chosen to exercise their free will to develop more and more spiritually. I also sadly recognize that, in the shorter term, extreme situations (events) are likely to be a prime mover of the more social structural process. This will likely create even more reasons for the more developed ones to be compassionate, caring and helpful to others in the process. I think of this as a transition "from me to we." Most likely, it is better understood as an expansion of love.

I agree with you, Lou. Only I would put the accent on our reaction to the events, more than on the events themselves. As Maté says, there are traumatic events, but the real trauma is generated in our reaction to these events. I agree there are extreme events that it's near to impossible to respond to with free will. However, more often than not, in common traumatic situations, we imagine that there's only one inevitable way to react. And so we feel that way automatically. We think that because someone has an offensive behavior, we must feel offended and there is no choice. We feel that because someone has tried to diminish us, we have no choice but feeling diminished, etc. Becoming aware of these degrees of freedom, that sometimes are separated from us only by a thin layer of habitual mind patterns does not exclude compassion and love from those who can be of help.

[Lou Gold]

Yes, Federica, the lasting personal trauma toxicity is the survival pattern (habit) that the event generated. And, yes, with courage and determination and assistance, a person can, through free will, break through the reactive prison of habit. AND, I believe that Maté is raising awareness also about a more social structural form of toxicity. For example, a child raised in an Anthroposophical community will have a better prepared (cultivated) free will than a child immersed in social media, which is designed to reinforce the desire to be liked in addictive ways. The latter, which is very present in the marketing strategies of consumer culture does alter the amount of independence and courage it will take to break free. The professional educational system is also critical. It matters whether doctors in pre- and perinatal medicine are taught about the lasting health effects of stress on the mothers. It matters whether universities teach scientists physicalism or idealism. In effect, the paradigm sets limits/opportunities and determines whether the system leans toward virtuous or toxic.

[Federica]

Yes, Federica, the lasting personal trauma toxicity is the survival pattern (habit) that the event generated. And, yes, with courage and determination and assistance, a person can, through free will, break through the reactive prison of habit. AND, I believe that Maté is raising awareness also about a more social structural form of toxicity. For example, a child raised in an Anthroposophical community will have a better prepared (cultivated) free will than a child immersed in social media, which is designed to reinforce the desire to be liked in addictive ways. The latter, which is very present in the marketing strategies of consumer culture does alter the amount of independence and courage it will take to break free. The professional educational system is also critical. It matters whether doctors in pre- and perinatal medicine are taught about the lasting health effects of stress on the mothers. It matters whether universities teach scientists physicalism or idealism. In effect, the paradigm sets limits/opportunities and determines whether the system leans toward virtuous or toxic.

Yes, the situation and the difficulty should be acknowledged, but I see a hidden risk in the acknowledgment. It is to address the generalized ‘social structural form of toxicity’ and ask it to issue our victim certificate, that we can use to reclaim compassion from others. That’s the risk. To mitigate it, is to realize that the only way to improve the situation, rather than to commiserate with each other about the toxicity, is to hinder its spread through individual conscious action, for our own and others’ sake. The value of that awareness is to prompt action, not compassion. Compassion doesn’t need to be prompted and doesn’t depend on the person who offers it being aware of the social structures of toxicity.

[Lou Gold]

Yes, Federica, the lasting personal trauma toxicity is the survival pattern (habit) that the event generated. And, yes, with courage and determination and assistance, a person can, through free will, break through the reactive prison of habit. AND, I believe that Maté is raising awareness also about a more social structural form of toxicity. For example, a child raised in an Anthroposophical community will have a better prepared (cultivated) free will than a child immersed in social media, which is designed to reinforce the desire to be liked in addictive ways. The latter, which is very present in the marketing strategies of consumer culture does alter the amount of independence and courage it will take to break free. The professional educational system is also critical. It matters whether doctors in pre- and perinatal medicine are taught about the lasting health effects of stress on the mothers. It matters whether universities teach scientists physicalism or idealism. In effect, the paradigm sets limits/opportunities and determines whether the system leans toward virtuous or toxic.

Yes, the situation and the difficulty should be acknowledged, but I see a hidden risk in the acknowledgment. It is to address the generalized ‘social structural form of toxicity’ and ask it to issue our victim certificate, that we can use to reclaim compassion from others. That’s the risk. To mitigate it, is to realize that the only way to improve the situation, rather than to commiserate with each other about the toxicity, is to hinder its spread through individual conscious action, for our own and others’ sake. The value of that awareness is to prompt action, not compassion. Compassion doesn’t need to be prompted and doesn’t depend on the person who offers it being aware of the social structures of toxicity.

False dichotomy, Federica. Compassion and action are not opposites! Systemic reform to eliminate a structural toxicity such as racism is compassion in action. Not blaming the victim does not imply doing nothing. It commands right or virtuous corrective action (repairing the world). My understanding of the word 'passion' is that it is active rather than passive and the prefix "com" means "with" or acting to correctly assign fault and act accordingly. This is well illustrated in Maté saying of drug addiction, "the right question is not 'why the addiction', but 'why the pain?'

[Federica]

Yes, Federica, the lasting personal trauma toxicity is the survival pattern (habit) that the event generated. And, yes, with courage and determination and assistance, a person can, through free will, break through the reactive prison of habit. AND, I believe that Maté is raising awareness also about a more social structural form of toxicity. For example, a child raised in an Anthroposophical community will have a better prepared (cultivated) free will than a child immersed in social media, which is designed to reinforce the desire to be liked in addictive ways. The latter, which is very present in the marketing strategies of consumer culture does alter the amount of independence and courage it will take to break free. The professional educational system is also critical. It matters whether doctors in pre- and perinatal medicine are taught about the lasting health effects of stress on the mothers. It matters whether universities teach scientists physicalism or idealism. In effect, the paradigm sets limits/opportunities and determines whether the system leans toward virtuous or toxic.

Yes, the situation and the difficulty should be acknowledged, but I see a hidden risk in the acknowledgment. It is to address the generalized ‘social structural form of toxicity’ and ask it to issue our victim certificate, that we can use to reclaim compassion from others. That’s the risk. To mitigate it, is to realize that the only way to improve the situation, rather than to commiserate with each other about the toxicity, is to hinder its spread through individual conscious action, for our own and others’ sake. The value of that awareness is to prompt action, not compassion. Compassion doesn’t need to be prompted and doesn’t depend on the person who offers it being aware of the social structures of toxicity.

False dichotomy, Federica. Compassion and action are not opposites! Systemic reform to eliminate a structural toxicity such as racism is compassion in action. Not blaming the victim does not imply doing nothing. It commands right or virtuous corrective action (repairing the world). My understanding of the word 'passion' is that it is active rather than passive and the prefix "com" means "with" or acting to correctly assign fault and act accordingly. This is well illustrated in Maté saying of drug addiction, "the right question is not 'why the addiction', but 'why the pain?'

No dichotomy, Lou, that’s what I am saying too. That we, as traumatized persons, try our best and use awareness of generalized toxicity as a foundation for conscious action, and not as a permission to feel like victims, entitled to receive compassion, does not exclude that others feel and show compassion to us nonetheless; and do reforms, and repair the world, for that matter. I guess I was not clear enough in my previous post.
I maintain, though: the risk is real that the person who suffers puts all the focus coming from that awareness on feeling like a victim, rather than on feeling like there are still degrees of freedom to leverage for oneself, dispite the social toxicity.

As I side note, I would say that for me repairing the world and doing reforms can be moral action, but not compassion. Compassion is for another fellow human in particular. It means sharing (as you said: with) the painful/stirring experience (pathos) of that particular person, being able to put ourselves in their shoes. It’s a feeling, in itself it is neither active nor passive. It can move us to action, in help of that specific person, of course. It cannot move us to do social reforms, in my view. The motive to act for social reform - the desire for social reform - is of moral nature, does not come from feeling.

[Lou Gold]

Yes, the situation and the difficulty should be acknowledged, but I see a hidden risk in the acknowledgment. It is to address the generalized ‘social structural form of toxicity’ and ask it to issue our victim certificate, that we can use to reclaim compassion from others. That’s the risk. To mitigate it, is to realize that the only way to improve the situation, rather than to commiserate with each other about the toxicity, is to hinder its spread through individual conscious action, for our own and others’ sake. The value of that awareness is to prompt action, not compassion. Compassion doesn’t need to be prompted and doesn’t depend on the person who offers it being aware of the social structures of toxicity.

False dichotomy, Federica. Compassion and action are not opposites! Systemic reform to eliminate a structural toxicity such as racism is compassion in action. Not blaming the victim does not imply doing nothing. It commands right or virtuous corrective action (repairing the world). My understanding of the word 'passion' is that it is active rather than passive and the prefix "com" means "with" or acting to correctly assign fault and act accordingly. This is well illustrated in Maté saying of drug addiction, "the right question is not 'why the addiction', but 'why the pain?'

No dichotomy, Lou, that’s what I am saying too. That we, as traumatized persons, try our best and use awareness of generalized toxicity as a foundation for conscious action, and not as a permission to feel like victims, entitled to receive compassion, does not exclude at all that others feel and show that compassion to us nonetheless; and do reforms, and repair the world, for that matter. I guess I was not clear enough in my previous post.
I maintain, though: the risk is real that the person who suffers puts all the focus coming from that awareness on feeling like a victim, rather than on feeling like there are still degrees of freedom to leverage for oneself, dispite the social toxicity.

As I side note, I would say that for me repairing the world and doing reforms can be moral action, but not compassion. Compassion is for another fellow human in particular. It means sharing (as you said: with) the painful/stirring experience (pathos) of that particular person, being able to put ourselves in their shoes. It’s a feeling, in itself it is neither active nor passive. It can move us to action, in help of that specific person, of course. It cannot move us to do social reforms, in my view. The motive to act for social reform - the desire for social reform - is of moral nature, does not come from feeling.

Well, sure, and I get your drift about the nuances and complications. The actual or metaphorical battlefield medic does not necessarily have the capability to stop the war (toxicity) and must just focus on reducing the suffering as much as possible. Yes, there still will be gnarly issues. Thich Nhat Hanh offered his view of being compassionate toward the rapist sea pirate in his explanation of the poem "Please Call Me by My True Names". Being a Bodhisattva or fully entering the insanities of the relative and temporary world is not an easy challenge. But it may be the difficult path toward the transformation of consciousness. Consider the Passion of Christ that compassionately includes Forgiveness.

Again, in your second paragraph, I don't really grok a separation of moral action and compassion. As a lifelong activist, I can only say that my efforts toward reform were (are) motivated by strong feelings.

[Federica]

False dichotomy, Federica. Compassion and action are not opposites! Systemic reform to eliminate a structural toxicity such as racism is compassion in action. Not blaming the victim does not imply doing nothing. It commands right or virtuous corrective action (repairing the world). My understanding of the word 'passion' is that it is active rather than passive and the prefix "com" means "with" or acting to correctly assign fault and act accordingly. This is well illustrated in Maté saying of drug addiction, "the right question is not 'why the addiction', but 'why the pain?'

No dichotomy, Lou, that’s what I am saying too. That we, as traumatized persons, try our best and use awareness of generalized toxicity as a foundation for conscious action, and not as a permission to feel like victims, entitled to receive compassion, does not exclude at all that others feel and show that compassion to us nonetheless; and do reforms, and repair the world, for that matter. I guess I was not clear enough in my previous post.
I maintain, though: the risk is real that the person who suffers puts all the focus coming from that awareness on feeling like a victim, rather than on feeling like there are still degrees of freedom to leverage for oneself, dispite the social toxicity.

As I side note, I would say that for me repairing the world and doing reforms can be moral action, but not compassion. Compassion is for another fellow human in particular. It means sharing (as you said: with) the painful/stirring experience (pathos) of that particular person, being able to put ourselves in their shoes. It’s a feeling, in itself it is neither active nor passive. It can move us to action, in help of that specific person, of course. It cannot move us to do social reforms, in my view. The motive to act for social reform - the desire for social reform - is of moral nature, does not come from feeling.

Well, sure, and I get your drift about the nuances and complications. The actual or metaphorical battlefield medic does not necessarily have the capability to stop the war (toxicity) and must just focus on reducing the suffering as much as possible. Yes, there still will be gnarly issues. Thich Nhat Hanh offered his view of being compassionate toward the rapist sea pirate in his explanation of the poem "Please Call Me by My True Names". Being a Bodhisattva or fully entering the insanities of the relative and temporary world is not an easy challenge. But it may be the difficult path toward the transformation of consciousness. Consider the Passion of Christ that compassionately includes Forgiveness.

To be honest, Lou, I am under the impression that we still don't understand each other very well on this question. My point is straightforward, there are no nuances or complications.
Forgiveness is certainly part of finding those degrees of freedom, for the traumatized person. When we forgive, we have necessarily overcome the risk I was talking about. We are using our freedom. We are freeing ourselves. But in order to come to that realization, in order to forgive, we don't need Gabor Maté to console us and tell us that trauma is the new normal. When we hear that too often, the risk is that we feel confirmed in our desire to give in and feel like there's nothing we can do about it.

[Lou Gold]

No dichotomy, Lou, that’s what I am saying too. That we, as traumatized persons, try our best and use awareness of generalized toxicity as a foundation for conscious action, and not as a permission to feel like victims, entitled to receive compassion, does not exclude at all that others feel and show that compassion to us nonetheless; and do reforms, and repair the world, for that matter. I guess I was not clear enough in my previous post.
I maintain, though: the risk is real that the person who suffers puts all the focus coming from that awareness on feeling like a victim, rather than on feeling like there are still degrees of freedom to leverage for oneself, dispite the social toxicity.

As I side note, I would say that for me repairing the world and doing reforms can be moral action, but not compassion. Compassion is for another fellow human in particular. It means sharing (as you said: with) the painful/stirring experience (pathos) of that particular person, being able to put ourselves in their shoes. It’s a feeling, in itself it is neither active nor passive. It can move us to action, in help of that specific person, of course. It cannot move us to do social reforms, in my view. The motive to act for social reform - the desire for social reform - is of moral nature, does not come from feeling.

Well, sure, and I get your drift about the nuances and complications. The actual or metaphorical battlefield medic does not necessarily have the capability to stop the war (toxicity) and must just focus on reducing the suffering as much as possible. Yes, there still will be gnarly issues. Thich Nhat Hanh offered his view of being compassionate toward the rapist sea pirate in his explanation of the poem "Please Call Me by My True Names". Being a Bodhisattva or fully entering the insanities of the relative and temporary world is not an easy challenge. But it may be the difficult path toward the transformation of consciousness. Consider the Passion of Christ that compassionately includes Forgiveness.

To be honest, Lou, I am under the impression that we still don't understand each other very well on this question. My point is straightforward, there are no nuances or complications.
Forgiveness is certainly part of finding those degrees of freedom, for the traumatized person. When we forgive, we have necessarily overcome the risk I was talking about. We are using our freedom. We are freeing ourselves. But in order to come to that realization, in order to forgive, we don't need Gabor Maté to console us and tell us that trauma is the new normal. When we hear that too often, the risk is that we feel confirmed in our desire to give in and feel like there's nothing we can do about it.

I'm willing to let it rest at you and I not totally being on the same page. I, personally, hear Maté's notion of a toxic normal as a call toward action rather than a consolation or reason for complacency. Nowhere, does he portray toxic normal as ok or not demanding moral action. He is offering a call and not an excuse. But we individuals have to face both opportunities and limits. The serenity prayer comes to mind: Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed; courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other.

[Lou Gold]

Federica,

I should add that if all you are saying is that, with human beings always come risks, I can hardly disagree. But this is also true in regard to "fallen" or corrupted notions of Moral action. A century ago, eugenics was quite fashionable with proponents including leading intellectuals, conservationists, philosophers, academics, business lumaries and even advocates for women and the handicapped. It is astonishing to read the moral support given by the blind and deaf Helen Keller. During those times, under that moral fashion, two-thirds of the US states had pro-eugenics laws (the last of which was only removed this century) and some 66,000 sterilizations without consent were performed in the US. So, yes, there are risks.